From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1504EC2D0E4 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 13:28:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD2C42468D for ; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 13:28:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726938AbgKSN2R (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Nov 2020 08:28:17 -0500 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:18960 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726830AbgKSN2R (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Nov 2020 08:28:17 -0500 IronPort-SDR: abzpEfYKlI5iP3cAFRhgTXNHdE/hQqtYY+JKiwpM61Hy44OMft0JlXwhTFjQV121je763ZfRRD Cw8O199rK5eA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9809"; a="171384522" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,490,1596524400"; d="scan'208";a="171384522" X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Nov 2020 05:28:15 -0800 IronPort-SDR: CEMsLUQ8xd/X778JsRPtrXffTzqBk3u13DjWEvCgvBm13FLySuUx7SRueLmDib9JCYGFUHwMr0 gBC0lcnx1d7g== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,490,1596524400"; d="scan'208";a="534775567" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com (HELO smile) ([10.237.68.40]) by fmsmga005-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Nov 2020 05:28:14 -0800 Received: from andy by smile with local (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1kfjzw-007wy3-8e; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 15:29:16 +0200 Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 15:29:16 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Linus Walleij Cc: Linux GPIO , Bartosz Golaszewski , Hans de Goede , Mika Westerberg Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] intel-gpio for 5.11-1 Message-ID: <20201119132916.GD4077@smile.fi.intel.com> References: <20201116152625.GA20187@black.fi.intel.com> <20201118141811.GV4077@smile.fi.intel.com> <20201119105828.GZ4077@smile.fi.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 01:43:38PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 11:57 AM Andy Shevchenko > wrote: > > > > And that patch was on my fixes branch, which went into v5.10-rc4, > > > so in order to have the base commit in the devel tree I had to merge > > > in v5.10-rc4. > > > > I based solely on your gpio/for-next as has been stated in the cover letter. > > So, the PR might have been applied on top of your gpio/for-next without any > > additional merge required. > > OK but my for-next isn't what is going to be merged by Torvalds so there > is some misunderstanding here. > > In my tree "for-next" does not mean "for the next kernel that Torvalds > is going to release", it means "for the linux-next integration tree". > > What is going into v5.11 is "devel" and that is why I'm always talking > about pulling stuff into devel etc. > > for-next is created when I merged a few patches like this: > > > git checkout for-next > > git reset --hard fixes > > git merge devel > > (Procedure to create integration branch recommended by > Stephen Rothwell at one point.) > > This is why your pull request work fine anyways if I merge in -rc4 > because then "devel" will contain all commits from these two > branches at that point. > > > I admit that PR automatic text is a bit deviated (it has been taken from wrong > > base, note that tag is correct nevertheless). I will look forward to amend my > > scripts. > > Don't worry about it. > > Maybe I need to think about how I name stuff. > > Should I rename the branch "for-next" to "for-sjr-next" and > rename "devel" to "for-torvalds-next" then "fixes" > into "for-torvalds-current" or something > so it is crystal clear what they are for? > > The community doesn't really have an established standard > here. Hmm... Usually for-next is what should come as material for next cycle. And devel or so is for testing (can be rebased / etc) I like the following schema (with possible variations in the parentheses): fixes (for-current) - what is going to the next rc of current cycle for-next - what is going to the next release cycle devel (review, ...) - what is under review / testing / etc What you explained to me seems like swapped for-next and devel semantics and this is confusing because the above schema is what I met in 99% of repositories I'm cooking patches against. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko